The comment does not address the actual content of our papers. Instead it states that our papers say things they do not say (or that our papers do not say thing they actually do say) and then uses those inaccurate claims as evidence that our work is erroneous.

(This is not the first time Buhaug and I have disagreed on what constitutes evidence. Kyle Meng and I recently published a paper in PNAS demonstrating that Buhaug’s 2010 critique of an earlier paper made aggressive claims that the earlier paper was wrong without actually providing evidence to support those claims.)